We see how your great ideas and policies led to Americans walking away

and not voting for you in 2008 and 2012 respectively.

So we do not need wrong incorrect advise.

You RINO’s and Establishment Republicans are what is wrong with the GOP.

WOLFEBORO, N.H. (AP) — Former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney jumped into the debate over the GOP’s future Tuesday night, warning congressional Republicans against forcing a government shutdown in their quest to stop President Barack Obama’s signature health care law.

Romney addressed more than 200 donors on the shores of Lake Winnipesaukee at a fundraiser for the New Hampshire Republican Party, staged just four miles from the vacation home where he has spent much of the summer with his family. The event was closed to the media, but his office released his prepared remarks.

“I badly want Obamacare to go away, and stripping it of funds has appeal. But we need to exercise great care about any talk of shutting down government,” Romney said in the first speech of its kind since his November election loss to Obama. “What would come next when soldiers aren’t paid, when seniors fear for their Medicare and Social Security, and when the FBI is off duty?”

He continued: “I’m afraid that in the final analysis, Obamacare would get its funding, our party would suffer in the next elections, and the people of the nation would not be happy. I think there are better ways to remove Obamacare.”

Romney did not criticize anyone by name, but he dismissed the very strategy employed by some of his party’s biggest names — potential 2016 presidential candidates among them. Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida, Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah are urging Republicans to swear off voting for any year-end spending bill that includes money for the president’s health care law. Parts of the federal government would shut down on Oct. 1 if Congress doesn’t approve a short-term funding bill before then.

Several Republicans on Capitol Hill have attacked the plan to strip health care funding from the spending bill in unusually harsh language, although Romney has been silent on this — and virtually every other public debate — for much of the last nine months.

It’s unclear what role the former Massachusetts governor hopes to play for the GOP. He has hinted at a desire to remain an active voice on major policy debates, and he maintains ties to a powerful national fundraising operation.

His presence at the New Hampshire GOP fundraiser Tuesday night helped raise tens of thousands of dollars, according to organizers, which is considered a large haul for a state party so long before the next election. Donors paid between $100 and $1,500 and traveled from as far as California to attend the event, which was held at a lakeside mansion used in 2007 as a vacation home for French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

In his speech, Romney acknowledged that some Republicans may not care for his perspective given his recent loss.

“I’m probably not the first person you’d ask for advice,” he said. “But because we all learn from our mistakes, I may have a thought or two of value.”

He called on Republicans to “stay smart,” in part, by backing candidates who can win. And as the pool of potential candidates for the 2016 presidential contest begins to grow, Romney suggested that most are not electable.

“My guess is that every one of the contenders would be better than whoever the Democrats put up,” he said. “But there will only be one or perhaps two who actually could win the election in November.”

Then get back to Conservatism that wins every time it is on the ballot.

From Wisconsin to Pennsylvania, Republicans who control legislatures in states that supported President Barack Obama are considering changing laws that give the winner of a state’s popular vote all of its Electoral College votes, too. They instead want Electoral College votes to be divided proportionally, a move that could transform the way the country elects its president.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus endorsed the idea this week, and other Republican leaders also support it — suggesting that the effort may be gaining momentum.

There are other signs that Republican state legislators, governors and veteran political strategists are seriously considering making the shift as the GOP looks to rebound from presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s Electoral College shellacking and the demographic changes that threaten the party’s long-term political prospects.

“It’s something that a lot of states that have been consistently blue that are fully controlled red ought to be looking at,” Priebus told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, emphasizing that each state must decide for itself.

Democrats are outraged at the potential change.

Obama won the popular vote with 65.9 million votes, or 51.1 percent, to Romney’s 60.9 million, or 47.2 percent, and won the Electoral College by a wide margin, 332-206 electoral votes. It’s unclear whether he would have been re-elected under the new system, depending upon how many states adopted the change.

While some Republican officials warn of a political backlash, GOP lawmakers in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are already lining up behind proposals that would allocate electoral votes by congressional district or something similar.

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder told The Associated Press on Tuesday that he “could go either way” on the change and doesn’t plan to push it. But he said it’s a reasonable issue to debate and that he prefers that leaders discuss it well before the next presidential election.

“It could be done in a thoughtful (way) over the next couple years and people can have a thoughtful discussion,” Snyder said.

Republican leaders in the Michigan Statehouse have yet to decide whether to embrace the change there. But state Rep. Peter Lund, a Republican who introduced a bill to change the allocation system two years ago, said some Republicans might be more receptive to his bill this year following the election.

“We never really pushed it before,” he said, adding that the bill wasn’t designed to help one party more than the other.

Democrats aren’t convinced. And they warned of political consequences for Republicans who back the shift — particularly those governors up for re-election in 2014, who include the governors of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, among others.

“This is nothing more than election-rigging,” said Michigan Democratic Chairman Mark Brewer.

Each state has the authority to shape its own election law. And in at least seven states — Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida and North Carolina — Republicans control both chambers of the state legislature and the governor’s office.

Already, Maine and Nebraska have moved away from a winner-take-all system to one that allocates electoral votes based on congressional district.

“This is a concept that’s got a lot of possibility and a lot of potential,” said Washington-based Republican strategist Phil Musser, acknowledging that the debate would “incite different levels of partisan acrimony.” Musser also predicted that more pressing economic issues would likely take priority in most Republican-led statehouses.

In Pennsylvania, Senate Republican leader Dominic Pileggi this week renewed his call for the Republican-controlled Legislature to revamp the way it awards electoral votes by using a method based on the popular vote that would have given Romney eight of the state’s 20 votes.

Democrats quickly criticized it as partisan scheme.

“It is difficult to find the words to describe just how evil this plan is,” said Pennsylvania state Sen. Daylin Leach, a Democrat. “It is an obscene scheme to cheat by rigging the elections.”

Gov. Tom Corbett, who supported a related proposal from Pileggi last year, had not seen the new plan and could not say whether he supports the new version, the Republican governor’s spokesman Kevin Harley said.

In Wisconsin, Republican Gov. Scott Walker has said that changing how electoral votes are allocated was an “interesting idea” but that it’s not one of his priorities, nor has he decided whether he supports such a change.

It’s gotten a lukewarm reception in the Republican-controlled Legislature as well. No proposal has been introduced yet and no lawmaker has announced any plans to do so, but the state Assembly speaker, Robin Vos, first proposed the change back in 2007.

“I am open to that idea,” Vos said in December as lawmakers prepared for the start of their session. “But I would have to hear all the arguments.”

All 10 of the state’s Electoral College votes went to Obama last fall under the current system. If they were awarded based on the new system, the votes would have been evenly split between Obama and Romney.

Democratic Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett sent an email plea urging people to sign a petition against the change: “We can’t sit silently by as they try to manipulate the democratic process for political advantage,” Barrett wrote. “We can’t let them attack the very democratic institutions and rights that others have sacrificed so much to gain — just because they don’t believe they can win in a fair election fight.”

So far, Republicans have only advocated for the change in states that have supported Democrats in recent elections. The view is predictably different in states where the Republican nominee is a cinch to win.

“The Electoral College has served the country quite well,” said Louisiana GOP Chairman Roger Villere, who doubles as a national party vice chairman.

He continued: “This is coming from states where it might be an advantage, but I’m worried about what it means down the road. This is a system that has worked. That doesn’t mean we can’t talk about changes, but we have to be very careful about any actions we might take.”

Let’s not sugarcoat it: we got our teeth kicked in on Tuesday. Sure, we added governorships and held our ground in the House, but we went backwards in the Senate and lost to an out-of-touch, incompetent, petty man who centered his campaign around Mitt Romney‘s bank account and Big Bird. We didn’t get beaten by Bill Clinton in a great economy; we got beaten by another Michael Dukakis in the midst of a terrible economy. On the upside, if people have ever wondered what Jimmy Carter’s second term would have looked like, then they’re about to find out.

Since that’s where we’re at, we have two choices. We can sit in the dirt for a couple of years, nursing the boo-boo on our collective knee while we moan about freeloaders and wonder what went wrong with America or we can stand up, brush ourselves off and get back in the game.

Really? It’s done? It’s over? What if the soldiers in George Washington’s army who were suffering through a winter without shoes had that attitude? Suppose Andrew Jackson had looked at the ragtag band of pirates and mercenaries he had to defend New Orleans during the war of 1812 and said, “Screw this, it’s too hard!” You think the Americans driving state-to-state, looking for work during the Depression had it easy? How about the American soldiers fighting for their lives in Korea against limitless waves of Chinese soldiers who were determined to push them into the sea so they could enslave South Korea? Remember when Reagan said, “Here’s my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose?” They laughed at him — but, nobody’s laughing now.

I can’t speak for anybody else, but I have a very simple goal: I want to kick their ass.

We do that by taking back the Senate in 2014 (which is doable if we have a good year) and then, in 2016, we’re going to beat whomever they run like a rented mule and step over their political corpse into the White House.

However, if we want to do that, the first thing we have to accept is that what we’re doing right now isn’t working and isn’t likely to work if we keep doing it. There’s a reason Albert Einstein said that “insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” It’s time for the Republican Party to stop the insanity and go in a different direction. 1) We need a better get out the vote campaign: Did you notice that Romney’s crowds were bigger than Obama‘s audiences down the stretch? Yet, Obama still won. What does that tell you? That tells me that Obama did a much better job of turning out low interest voters than Romney. It was well known that Obama had an incredibly sophisticated, well staffed GOTV campaign but the Romney campaign was supposed to match up to that with its own system, Project ORCA. Unfortunately, Project ORCA turned out to be the biggest disaster since the Hindenburg. Tens of thousands of volunteers sat idle all day because the system wasn’t working and eventually it just crashed. It seems entirely possible at this point that the Romney campaign lost multiple states because of the complete and utter failure of his get out the vote campaign. This one factor alone could be the difference between victory and defeat in 2016.

2) The primary system needs to be reformed: Here’s a thought: Maybe allowing our nominee to be chosen by two moderate, lily white states that seem to choose their favorite Republican candidates based on who shakes the most hands in diners and county fairs isn’t the best idea. There are a lot of other workable suggestions that would break the tyrannical hold New Hampshire and Iowa have over the Republican Party’s presidential nominations and it’s time to start pursuing other options.

Additionally, Mitt Romney’s dirty, overly negative campaign created an extremely poisonous atmosphere in both the 2008 and 2012 primary campaigns. Eventually, the other candidates and their supporters became tired of Romney’s sleazy campaigning and fired back even harder, which made the entire primary season look like a piranha tank at feeding time. As primary voters, we need to punish candidates that do that in future elections instead of taking an “All’s fair in love and war” approach. We also need to consider whether the long campaign season is to our advantage or whether we’d be better off having a candidate wrap it up early so he can begin defining himself and raising money for the general election.

3) The establishment doesn’t get to choose the next GOP nominee: What have we been hearing over and over again from the D.C. establishment and the Old Guard in the Republican Party? We have to choose a moderate candidate who runs a bland, safe campaign and doesn’t talk about social issues. Well, guess what? We just lost two straight elections against a weak opponent with candidates who fit that mold perfectly. Next time around, we need a full spectrum conservative who can actually inspire people to turn out to vote FOR HIM instead of just AGAINST the Democratic nominee.

4) Stop losing votes to fraud and count those military ballots: We have such a third grade, stick your vote in the shoebox style voting system in this country that it’s hard to even figure out how much fraud is occurring. While it’s important to make sure every eligible American has a right to vote, it’s JUST AS IMPORTANT to insure that no one has his legitimate vote cancelled out by fraud. Making sure that both Democrats and Republicans are confident in the integrity of our elections needs to be a higher priority than leaving the system open to fraud in order to make it as easy as possible to vote.

Additionally, tens, if not hundreds of thousands of military votes aren’t being counted every year because the same military that can coordinate a bombing run anywhere on earth within twenty four hours can’t manage to get our troops’ ballots to the polls in time for an election. It’s a disgrace that the same soldiers who risk their lives to ensure our freedom can’t even be sure that their own votes will be counted. The Democrats may not care about that because the military leans heavily to the right, but it’s time for the GOP to start caring, not just because it’s the right thing to do, but because we’re leaving tens of thousands of votes on the table in every election.

5) We need to start doing some REAL minority outreach: For the Republican Party to continue to be viable over the long term, we’re going to have to do better with minority voters. Period. Unfortunately, the primary way most people seem to be suggesting that we do that is by backing amnesty to bring in Hispanics or Affirmative Action to draw black voters.

Let me be extremely blunt: That is a desperate and stupid argument that flies directly in the face of reality.

Take an issue that conservatives care about dearly — like the 2nd Amendment. If the Democrats suddenly became a pro-2nd Amendment party, would half of conservatives vote for them en masse? Of course not. Do Jews vote for the GOP because we’re the pro-Israel party? No, they don’t. So, why would anybody think Hispanics are going to go for the GOP if we support amnesty? The Democrats certainly don’t think that. The reason they support amnesty is because they think it will bring in millions of new Hispanic votes for them. They’re right about that.

The reason some Republicans take this dumb position is because the real fix would be playing the same game that Democrats do with minority voters and they’ve had decades to get ahead of us at it. The fact of the matter is that we need to create, fund, and support our own La Raza, our own NAACP, and our own NOW. Groups like that already exist, but they get minimal amounts of support. What we need are Hispanic Republicans on Hispanic radio shows making our case, black Republicans pointing out racism in the Democratic Party and prominent conservative women’s groups slamming the Democrats as sexist for reducing them to nothing more than the sum of their “lady parts.” The truth is that no matter how much Republicans may cherish the notion that we should all be “judged by the content of our character, not the color of our skin,” a lot of Americans don’t agree and the GOP is going to die in the political wilderness waiting for everyone to come around to our way of thinking.

6) It’s time to refresh our agenda and messaging: Principles may stay the same over time, but agendas should change.

For example, it may make sense to oppose tax increases for middle class Americans, but it no longer makes political sense to push tax cuts. The 47% of Americans who pay no income taxes certainly aren’t going to be swayed by that and although we should certainly defend the rich on principle, fighting tooth and nail to make sure the wealthy never pay a dime more in taxes when we have a trillion dollar deficit is a dead dog loser of an issue.

Also, although I believe we should be doing more to promote our stands on social issues, not less, it’s time to ask whether candidates that oppose abortion for victims of rape and incest are making perfect the enemy of the good. Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock both lost on that issue and there’s a better chance that the American people will make the cockroach our national bug than there is that they will go along with banning abortions after rape or incest. So, why shouldn’t politicians focus on what’s politically possible instead of taking a position based on what we’d like to see happen in a perfect world?

Last but not least, our messaging has gotten way too wonky as a party. We talk about Supreme Court cases to people who’ve never heard of Antonin Scalia, free trade issues to people who think NAFTA is a government agency, and we talk about the size of the debt to people whose eyes glaze over when they try to figure out how to split a check at a restaurant. We need to get back to basics with a much more simple premise when we pitch a voter: Here’s what we’re going to do to make your life better and here’s what they’re going to do to make your life worse.

7) We don’t spend our money wisely: The GOP spent over a billion dollars on the 2012 campaign just to flip North Carolina and Indiana, hold our ground in the House, and lose seats in the Senate. Meanwhile, we’re doing a mediocre job of voter registration, we do almost no minority outreach of consequence, we’re doing very little to reach out to young voters and much of the conservative new media is withering away and dying for lack of funds. Consultant Sean Hackbarth and I don’t see eye-to-eye on some issues, but his advice for conservative groups is spot-on.

Specifically to conservative groups here’s some additional advice:* Hire consultants who want to transform current campaign approaches. Don’t accept tried-and-true. Or better yet, bring them in-house and let them play to their heart’s content.

* Create an environment where talented people want to join you in taking big risks and be willing to pay them.

* Scour America for savant tech-heads willing to work for the cause. Visit MIT, Stanford, and other top schools. Go to tech conferences and read tech weblogs to find top-notch talent.

* Quit expecting great content to be delivered for free from supporters. Pay people to write, tweet, make videos, make infographics, develop apps, etc. With the millions spent by super PACs we know the money is out there.

* Be willing to give credit to other groups. Don’t let your egos stop you from cooperating. We’re all on the same team.

* Share ideas that work.

* Find ways to amplify what allied groups are doing.

Maybe instead of expecting grassroots conservatives to produce miracles out of whatever pocket change they can pull out of their couch cushions, some of the deep pocketed donors could try funding them. After all, isn’t it time that donors start demanding to see results out of conservative organizations, think tanks and TV ads just as they do out of government?

In the Oct. 16 presidential debate between President Barack Obama and GOP challenger W. Mitt Romney, when the president dropped the pretense of being neutral on restricting gun rights with a key assist from moderator Candy Crowley, hostess of the CNN program “State of the Nation.”

After his policies were rebuked in the 1994 midterms, President William J. Clinton, blamed more than anything else his support for a national ban on so-called assault weapons. It must have been a calculated move for Obama to suggest he would bring back the ban that had expired.

The questioner asked the president what he had done to fulfill his 2008 promise to keep AK-47’s and so-called assault weapons out of the hands of criminals.

Americans support the Second Amendment, he said. Then, those concerned about gun rights waited for the “but.”

They did not have to wait long.

“But there have been too many instances during the course of my presidency, where I’ve had to comfort families who have lost somebody,” he said.

“We have to enforce the laws we’ve already got, make sure that we’re keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill,” he said.

“We’ve done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we’ve got more to do when it comes to enforcement,” he said. “What I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced.”

Obama said it made sense to him that weapons designed for soldiers should not be in the hands of civilians.

Perhaps sensing the a coming retort, the president acknowledged his own city of Chicago, a city with some of the strictest gun laws in the country, is rife with gun violence. “Frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns.”

Message: We are coming after the hand guns, too.

The president and his campaign have been quick to point out that in the last four years, the administration has not proposed new restrictions on gun rights. In the Oct. 16 debate, Obama crossed that line with not only a call for responsible gun ownership, but also with his support for screening Americans for their mental capacity to exercise their guns rights.

Like trying to get off the No-Fly List, Americans who find themselves on the No-Gun List, like veterans, who seek counseling, have no process to appeal or otherwise adjudicate their status–a status bestowed upon them with the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen and often without notice.

For his part, Romney got caught up in the law he signed in Massachusetts that banned so-called “assault weapons.” It is a position that Romney took with the cooperation of the National Rifle Association because it loosened other gun restrictions.

The former Bay State governor scored some serious points with he brought up the Fast and Furious scandal, unfortunately, the rogue moderator stepped in again to interrupt Romney and break up his rhetorical momentum.

“The – the greatest failure we’ve had with regards to – to gun violence in some respects is what – what is known as Fast and Furious. Which was a program under this administration, and how it worked exactly I think we don’t know precisely, where thousands of automatic, and AK-47 type weapons were – were given to people that ultimately gave them to – to drug lords,” Romney said.

“They used those weapons against – against their own citizens and killed Americans with them. And this was a – this was a program of the government,” he said. “I’d like to understand who it was that did this, what the idea was behind it, why it led to the violence, thousands of guns going to Mexican drug lords.”

The president used one of his lifelines: “Candy?”

The immoderate moderator interceded: ”Governor, Governor, if I could, the question was about these assault weapons that once were once banned and are no longer banned.” There could be no discussion of the Justice Department program that sent thousands of military-style long guns to Mexican crime organizations. Because? Because, no reason, because–and that was that.

On Tuesday, Americans will have one last opportunity to reject Obamacare. Only with a Romney/Ryan victory can this happen. Another term for President Obama propels us further along a treacherous path that seals our healthcare future. We are on a course which gaurantees a larger government role in our healthcare decisions. Instead of a future of limitless innovation and other possibilities that we can only imagine, we face the prospect of mediocrity that we have come to expect from the central planners in Washington.

Americans have grown weary of hearing about the healthcare law. The focus of this campaign has been on economic issues and job creation. Many feel that the healthcare battle has already been fought, and that those who opposed Obamacre have lost, and need to simply move on. However, since healthcare is so complex and difficult to understand, most people simply fail to grasp the implications of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Unfortunately many of these individuals are your doctors. Since this law phases in gradually over years, it is intended to be an insidious process, so that people won’t notice the negative implications until they are too entrenched to undo. At some point in the future, they will wake up and wonder what happened to American healthcare and why they no longer have any control over it.

There are people who have been paying attention and understand what is at stake. These individuals have tried to remind Americans of the way that the Democrats, in a totally one-sided partisan fashion, lied, deceived, and subverted the traditional political process to push their own unpopular agenda upon all Americans.

Those who have not let this matter die, continue to remind Americans that this law was sold with a promise to solve the problems of the high cost of healthcare and access to services. But, we now know that this was false. The ACA has made both worse. Moreover, we simply cannot afford the price tag of $2.7 Trillion dollars- a number that is constantly getting larger.

The watchdogs remind Americans that we are all patients, either current or future. The ACA has conferred full authority over your healthcare to Washington bureaucrats, with absolute power concentrated in the Office of the Secretary of Health & Human Services. Your doctor no longer is alone with you in the exam room. There is always the invisible, but very real presence of the federal government in the room, monitoring your most personal realtionship, the one that you have with your doctor, only as opposed to your personal physician, this intruder is empowered to make choices for you, not necessarily in your best interest.

Eighty percent of doctors in the country oppose this law, as well as 55% of the general public. Those who have supported the law have tried to divert the public’s attention with “free services” but it is just “fool’s gold”. Free healthcare screenings, free contraception, free healthcare to young individuals are just mirages. There is no such thing as free, but people have yet to learn about the high price that they will be paying for “free”.

The Democrats and their media allies want you to believe that this issue is behind us. Fortunately it is not, and we do have a choice. You can do what the Supreme Court failed to do with this unconstitutional law. It can be thrown out and we can start again and achieve healthcare reform that makes sense for most Americans. The ACA is a disjointed hodgepodge of new rules and regulations that only amplifies the problems that we started with in healthcare and adds new ones that threaten to destroy a healthcare system that most of us have found quite satisfactory, but in need of improvement. America has a health care payment system problem- not a healthcare problem. This law will see to it that we will soon have both.

An Obama victory is a vote of confidence for this misguided healthcare overreach. What we need instead is a repudiation of Obamacare – something that only Mitt Romney can deliver. He will repeal Obamacare and start with a clean slate. President Romney will address the true causes of the healthcare maladies that have plagued us, while working in a bipartisan manner to address them in the open, which failed to occur in 2010. The people now need to choose between what, regrettably, will be the beginning of the medical dark ages, or a reset with the possibility of strengthening the best healthcare system in the world for ourselves and our children. A Romney victory is our only hope and our last chance.

Mitt Romney and President Obama are hitting the campaign trail Sunday at a furious pace by crossing time zones – and even each other – in a final effort to appeal to the undecided voters who will help determine the close race.

The candidates will make their closing arguments in six key battleground states.

Romney will hold three rallies – in Iowa, Ohio, then Pennsylvania while the president will visit New Hampshire, Florida, Ohio and Colorado.

Their events in Cleveland and Cincinnati respectively are just hours apart.

The candidates are once again tied nationally with two days remaining before Election Day, according to a Washington Post-ABC News tracking poll released Sunday.

Among likely voters, Obama and Romney are deadlocked at 48 percent. And for the first time this year, they are tied among independents voters, at 46 percent each, the poll says.

Romney’s position going into Election Day is in part the result of how he performed in the three presidential debates, The Post reports.

Obama’s campaign is mobilizing a massive get-out-the-vote effort aimed at carrying the Democrat to victory, as Romney makes a late play for votes in Democratic-leaning Pennsylvania.

A new poll in The Pittsburgh Tribune shows the race for Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes locked up at 47 percent in its final week. The poll by Susquehanna Polling & Research surveyed 800 likely voters from Thursday through Saturday and most of the interviews occurred after superstorm Sandy inundated eastern and central Pennsylvania. The poll’s error margin is 3.46 percentage points, according to the newspaper.

Both campaigns were predicting wins in Tuesday’s election. Obama was closing out the campaign with an apparent edge in some key battleground states, including Ohio. But Romney’s campaign was projecting momentum and banking on late-breaking voters to propel him to victory in the exceedingly close race.

“Words are cheap and a record is real and it’s earned with effort,” Romney said Saturday, making a final appeal to voters in Colorado.

The Republican presidential nominee was cutting away briefly Sunday from the nine or so competitive states that have dominated the candidates’ travel itineraries this fall. He and running mate Rep. Paul Ryan have an early-evening event planned in Morrisville, Pa. — Romney’s first rally in the state this fall.

Romney’s visit follows the decision by his campaign and its Republican allies to put millions of dollars in television advertising in Pennsylvania during the race’s final weeks. Obama’s team followed suit, making a late advertising buy of its own.

The Republican ticket cast the late push into the Keystone State as a sign that Romney had momentum and a chance to pull away states that Obama’s campaign assumed it would win handily.

The president’s team called the move a “Hail Mary” and a sign Romney still doesn’t have a clear pathway to reaching the required 270 Electoral College votes.

Democrats have a million-voter registration advantage in Pennsylvania. Obama senior adviser David Plouffe said that means Romney would have to win two-thirds of the state’s independents, a prospect he called “an impossibility.”

The president caught a few hours of sleep back at the White House Saturday night before hitting the campaign trail again Sunday. After Marine One lifts off from the South Lawn Sunday morning, Obama won’t return to the executive mansion again until after Election Day.

The president’s rallies are aimed at boosting Democratic enthusiasm and motivating as many supporters as possible to cast their votes, either in the final hours of early voting or on Tuesday, Election Day. Persuading undecided voters, now just a tiny sliver of the electorate in battleground states, has become a secondary priority.

Obama and former President Bill Clinton drew 24,000 people to an outdoor rally in Bristow, Va., on a cold Saturday night.

Clinton, his voice hoarse after a week of campaigning, said he had “given my voice in the service of my president.” But that didn’t stop him from launching into a 30-minute defense of Obama and his economic policies.

He also slammed Romney for his shifting positions, saying “He could be the chief contortionist for Cirque de Soleil.”

Obama, who spoke second, embraced Clinton as he walked on stage. The president said at this stage of the campaign, he was largely “a prop” and the race was in the voters’ hands.

“The power is not with us anymore,” he said. “It’s all up to you.”

Obama’s campaign said it had registered 1.8 million voters in key battleground states, nearly double the number of voters they registered in 2008. Campaign officials said volunteers had made 125 million personal phone calls or door knocks with voters.

Romney has also attracted large crowds in the final weekend of campaigning. His rally in Ohio on Friday drew more than 20,000 people.

Romney has been using teleprompters to deliver his final campaign speeches. He’s claiming the mantle of change — and highlighting what he says was a bipartisan record as governor of Massachusetts.

A few weeks ago, Twitchy reported on Twitter users threatening to riot if President Obama loses to GOP rival Mitt Romney. With four days to go until Election Day, we decided this is a topic worth revisiting. The results of our Twitter searches are not pretty:

Those are just the riot threats posted today (Friday November 2nd). It is reasonable to assume that hundreds more were posted prior to today — all of them ignored by a complacent, biased mainstream media.

Interestingly, the threats made today were posted exclusively by supporters of President Obama. We weren’t able to find even one Republican threatening to riot if Mitt Romney loses.

Granted, most of these riot threats were probably made in jest, but a few may be serious. People who do not respect property rights and have little regard for the rules governing civil society have been known to riot over matters of less importance than a presidential election.

The threat was made via a web ad video released earlier this week in which Moore and MoveOn hide behind elderly women who make scripted terrorist threats against Romney and the nation over the presidential election.

One woman is shown inciting riots if Romney defeats Democratic party President Barack Obama, “I want the Republican party to know, if your voter suppression throughout this beautiful country enables Romney to oust Barack Obama, we will burn this mother****** down!” (Expletive edited from original.)

Another woman says she’ll attack Romney in his genitals, “If the Republicans steal this election, I am going to track down Mitt Romney and give him the world’s biggest ****-punch. What’s the matter sonny, you never heard that phrase, ****-punch? Right in the *******.” (Expletives deleted from original.)

Several phone calls to the Secret Service public affairs office about the threat to Romney, who is under their protection, over the past few days have not been returned. Detailed messages of inquiry were left with the voicemail of spokesman George Ogilvie.

A search of news sites shows no articles reporting a Secret Service investigation in to the threat.

Last April, conservative rock musician and outspoken Second Amendment activist Ted Nugent was investigated by the Secret Service within days of making an ambiguous comment about President Barack Obama.

Nugent was reported to have said at a National Rifle Association convention, “If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.”

After meeting with Nugent, the Secret Service issued a statement, “The Secret Service interview of Ted Nugent has been completed,” Secret Service spokesman Brian Leary told Yahoo News. “The issue has been resolved. The Secret Service does not anticipate any further action.”

Unlike Moore and MoveOn, Nugent did not make a threat of violence. Romney has been the subject of numerous threats, prompting the Secret Service to take to Twitter to encourage people to report threats.

While it highly unlikely the women in the ad would be able to fulfill their threats, Moore and MoveOn are inciting violence against Romney and riots over the election.

Is the Secret Service playing politics by not investigating the ad? It would appear so. In 2004 Moore was a guest of honor at the Democrats’ convention, being seated in a special box with former President Jimmy Carter. MoveOn is a well-funded ally of the Democrat party.

There has been no statement from the Obama campaign or administration denouncing the threats of violence against the president’s chief political rival and riots by Moore and MoveOn.

MoveOn’s posting of the ad at YouTube lists the credits for the video:

Produced by Michael Moore w/ Daron Murphy & David Ambrose of ART NOT WAR

Obama does not understand business or know how to create jobs or make payroll.

The Romney campaign is ripping President Obama for calling for the creation of a secretary of business to handle the nation’s economic ills — running a TV ad saying that solution would only add more bureaucracy to a cluttered system.

“His solution to everything is to add another bureaucrat,” the narrator says in the 30-second spot. “Why not have a president who actually understands business?”

The president floated the idea last week, saying he wanted to consolidate “a whole bunch” of government agencies.

“We should have one secretary of business, instead of nine different departments that are dealing with things like giving loans to (the Small Business Administration) or helping companies with exports,” Obama told MSNBC.

Romney criticized the idea Thursday during a rally in southwest Virginia.

“I know the president is trying to figure out some way to suggest he has new ideas,” said Romney, repeating as he often has on the trail that roughly 23 million Americans are out of work or underemployed. “He came up with the idea of creating a Department of Business. I don’t think adding a new chair in his cabinet will add more jobs on Main Street.”

The Obama campaign responded by saying the president called on Congress in January to give him authority the streamline the Executive Branch so businesses could more easily access government resources.

“The idea that Mitt Romney would help businesses grow as president doesn’t match his record or his policies,” campaign spokeswoman Lis Smith said Thursday. “When the American auto industry and a million jobs were on the line, Romney turned his back, which is why he’s trying to rewrite history. … Romney can lurch from false attack to false attack in the final days of this campaign, but the American people understand President Obama is the only candidate in this race with a concrete plan to move our country forward.”

The campaigns were trading jabs Thursday after dialing back the partisan rhetoric for a few days due to monster storm Sandy. Obama met Wednesday with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and toured the devastation there, after Romney attended a relief rally the day before. Both candidates continued to reference the storm and its victims in their stump speeches.

While the Obama campaign is trying to carry a pro-business mantle, Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul disputed their claims. She said Thursday the solution is not to re-elect a president whose policies are “hostile to job creators” — citing reports on voter concerns about the president’s health care law, increased regulations and proposed tax hikes for small businesses.

Republican running mate Paul Ryan, in Greeley, Colo., also mocked Obama on Thursday for the proposal. He said the country already has a secretary of business. “It’s called the secretary of commerce,” he said.

MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell on Tuesday questioned the sincerity of a “storm relief” event organized by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney in Ohio, arguing that the Red Cross apparently has no need for donated clothes or canned goods.

“You’ve got the image of Mitt Romney doing what, they say, is not a campaign event in the same space they were going to hold a campaign event. They say they’re making collections for hurricane and storm relief,” the MSNBC anchor said during a Tuesday broadcast of “Mitchell Reports.”

“We checked with the Red Cross. The Red Cross said, while they’re always grateful for donations, that this is not what they need or want. They always tell people, ‘please donate money, because we have our own packagers, wholesalers’ — they have their own distribution system,” she continued.

Yes, with major weather events like Superstorm Sandy, the Red Cross does put an emphasis on monetary donations. That’s probably why, along with tables “piled high with flashlights, batteries, diapers, toothbrushes, mini-deodorants, fleece blankets, cereal, toilet paper and canned goods,” the Romney event also featured two large TV screens encouraging supporters to text “REDCROSS” to 90999 and “make a $10 donation.”

“And to now get these canned goods from the Romney event in Ohio, and have to first package it — used clothes, they have to clean, they can’t go directly to victims. So, what they need are donations of blood and donations of money,” said Mitchell. “It does seem like a thinly veiled, uh, why Ohio? Why choose Ohio for –”

Hundreds of thousands of homes across Northeast Ohio were still without power this morning as high winds and rain from tropical rainstorm Sandy lashed a wide swath of the country, from Florida to Canada and as far west as Chicago.

And just for good measure: “The state of Ohio is opening its emergency operations center after Superstorm Sandy left more than 250,000 people without power.”

Representatives from the Red Cross have not yet responded to TheBlaze’s request for comment regarding Mitchell’s remarks, which you can see below: